SynthesisActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2020
RT-qPCR assays based on saliva rather than on nasopharyngeal swabs are possible but should be interpreted with caution: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis on real world data.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of different sampling approaches for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Are saliva and deep throat sputum as reliable as common respiratory specimens for SARS-CoV-2 detection? A systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of infection control · 2021Pooled it
- Screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR: Saliva or nasopharyngeal swab? Rapid review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- SARS-CoV-2 Variants May Affect Saliva RT-PCR Assay Sensitivity.The journal of applied laboratory medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of an RT-PCR test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva.Diagnostic and prognostic research · 2024Article
- Molecular accuracy vs antigenic speed: SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.Current opinion in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Acceptability of OP/Na swabbing for SARS-CoV-2: a prospective observational cohort surveillance study in Western Australian schools.BMJ open · 2022Observational
- Prospective Study of the Performance of Parent-Collected Nasal and Saliva Swab Samples, Compared with Nurse-Collected Swab Samples, for the Molecular Detection of Respiratory Microorganisms.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Observational
- The reliability of saliva for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients: Insights on the diagnostic performance and utility for COVID-19 screening.Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease · 2021Article
- Use of emerging testing technologies and approaches for SARS-CoV-2: review of literature and global experience in an Australian context.Pathology · 2021Review
- Article
- COVID-19 and Dentistry in 72 Questions: An Overview of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Concerning the OptiGene Direct LAMP assay, and it’s use in at-risk groups and hospital staff.The Journal of infection · 2021Article
- Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in an Italian cohort in Marche Region, Italy.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Endodontic procedures produce bacterial droplet contamination - but what about viruses?Evidence-based dentistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and aim of the workThe ongoing pandemic has elicited an increasing interest regarding the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens rather than through nasopharyngeal swabs. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection through RT-qPCR based on salivary specimens compared to conventional nasopharyngeal swabs.
methodsWe reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to June 1st, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis.
resultsThe systematic review eventually retrieved 14 studies including a total of 15 estimates, the were included in quantitative synthesis. We found a pooled specificity of 97.7% (95%CI 93.8-99.2) and a pooled sensitivity of 83.4% (95%CI 73.1-90.4), with an overall agreement assessed by means of Cohen's kappa equals to 0.750, 95%CI 0.62-0.88 (i.e. moderate agreement), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias.
conclusionsIn conclusion, diagnostic tests based on salivary specimens are somewhat reliable, but relatively few studies have been carried out. Moreover, such studies are characterized by low numbers and low sample power. Therefore, the of salivary samples is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more conventional RT-qPCR based on nasopharyngeal swabs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.